Meta

Rating The Broncos’ Veteran Contracts

As I sat down to examine the veteran contracts the Denver Broncos have given out, I thought about a way to rate contracts that made sense in terms of what’s important to a contract from a team’s perspective.

Obviously, from the player’s perspective, the objective is to get the maximum possible amount of money from the team with the more fully guaranteed money, the better. From a team perspective, it’s not just making sure the team doesn’t give more fully guaranteed money than the player may be worth, but about structuring a deal to be salary cap friendly and not overpaying a player in terms of average salary, even if the player isn’t likely to collect the full amount of the contract.

So I put together a ranking system that takes into account the three most important factors of a contract and weighed them in order of importance. These rankings do not take into account the total sum of the contract because most players will not collect the total sum.

Here is how I scored contracts.

Fully guaranteed money upon signing rated from 1 to 6: Fully guaranteed money gets the most weight because that’s really what matters the most regarding a contract. Everybody likes to talk about the total guarantee because it sounds better, but injury-only guarantees favor the team more than the player. Ratings of 4 to 6 lean toward great value, with 4 about what you expect to pay for the player to 6 being exceptional value. Ratings of 1 to 3 represent overpaying, with 3 being a slight but perhaps understandable overpay to 1 being a definite overpay.

Contract structure rated from 1 to 5: Contract structure bears the next importance in terms of rating contracts. Top players at their position are fine to sign for “three years then we’ll see” while good but not top players are fine at “two years then we’ll see.” Veterans who have some things to prove need to be on a “one year then we’ll see” deal, even if it’s a multi-year deal. There’s also considerations regarding whether you can get out of a contract for both cap and cash reasons, or for cash reasons but taking an unfavorable cap hit. A rating of 3 is in line with what you expect for the player. A rating of 4 or 5 means a structure that is more team friendly than what you may expect, while a rating of 1 or 2 means the team did a poor job of structuring the deal.

Average salary per year rank rated from to 1 to 4: Average salary counts, though not as much as the other two because where a player’s deal will rank could change over time depending on what other veterans receive. A rating of 4 means the player is great value at this stage of his career while a rating of 1 means the player is overvalued. Ratings of 2 or 3 are closer to what you would expect for the player, with 3 leaning toward good value and 2 leaning toward overvalued.

By averaging the three values together, you get a scale of 1 to 5, with each division between numbers (.3 or .6) representing a letter grade. Here’s what it looks like:

In looking at the Broncos, I graded all veteran contracts except for Zach Kerr and Kasim Edebali. Those two players were restricted free agents who weren’t tendered by their teams who got first-year money that was less than the right of first refusal tender money, so they essentially got low-cost, one-year “prove it” deals. I also didn’t grade rookie contracts because their salaries are set at hard numbers and the only language to negotiate is the payout of the signing bonus and other smaller details.

Let’s look at where the veterans on the Broncos roster grade out, ranked from best value to worst value.

At the time Talib signed this deal, plenty of critics thought it was too much money for a cornerback who, while talented, had so many off-field incidents that it was better to go with short-term deals. But what made this contract so good was that the Broncos could have cut Talib after just one season if they wanted to, so long as he didn’t have a significant injury.

Though Talib has collected more money that became fully guaranteed over time, it’s hard to argue he wasn’t deserving of it. Despite having drawn a few costly unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, he has been a top 10 cornerback, arguably top five, the past two seasons and is coming off his best season with the Broncos, perhaps the best season of his career. From this point forward, Talib has no guaranteed money and can be cut at any time with minimal cap hit. But given how Talib has played, and with cornerback salaries still rising, it’s not difficult to see the Broncos sticking with him as long as he plays at a high level and avoids serious off-field incidents.

We all knew at the time Harris signed his deal that it represented great value. Since that time, Harris has cemented himself as a top 10 cornerback, arguably top five, and his deal looks better with each passing season given the rising costs for veteran cornerbacks. While I give the edge to Talib’s deal because Harris’ deal wasn’t structured like Talib’s, the Harris contract is still excellent value.

And while Ward is coming off a somewhat down season after two strong seasons, it’s easy to see why the Broncos will keep him for at least one more year. His average salary doesn’t even rank in the top 20 and it’s hard to argue that Ward, even off his down year, isn’t at least in the top 20 at his position. On top of that, the fully guaranteed money he got upon singing looks like a bargain compared to recent deals handed out to top safeties.

I don’t have much to add about these contracts (which were good deals for the Broncos), other than the deals look better when looking at the average salary ranking. Stewart is arguably a top 10 safety and the Broncos paid him outside the top 10. Marshall is close to the top five in terms of average salary, but some could argue he’s top three at his position.

Miller’s deal falls exactly where you would expect it to. The good thing is Miller’s level of play didn’t drop off after he signed the extension. As long as he keeps playing at a high level, he’s worth the deal.

Wolfe and Sanders got contracts that fall in line with what you would have expected, though one might argue Wolfe is worth an effective three-year deal and Sanders is worth an effective two-year extension. Additionally, Sanders’ average salary still keeps him at good value, even if he’s no longer what one would call a bargain as was the case with the first contract he signed with the Broncos.

As for Anderson, I know everyone will argue that the Broncos should have just given him the second-round tender last year, but the fact that the deal he got is more team friendly than people may think (the Dolphins structured it mostly to test the Broncos’ willingness to push tight against the cap) and that he’s going to collect just $3M this year, I think you have to recognize that, in the end, it worked out all right for the Broncos.

Some may argue that Leary was overpaid, but the market dictated that was likely to happen. Otherwise, the deal falls in line with what you would expect. I don’t have the ranking among all guards, but for now, I’m OK with scoring it where I have. We’ll find out more this season whether he’s truly worth the deal.

When the Broncos extended Thomas, he was arguably worth the effective three-year deal, though some may wonder if that has remained the case. Another question is whether he is a top-five receiver at this stage, even if you exclude players on rookie contracts. For now, I think it’s OK to score him as I have. The fully guaranteed money is where some might debate it was too high, so I can see the argument for dropping that score a point.

Peko’s deal falls in line with what you would expect in every category. Keep in mind that there aren’t 32 3-4 defensive tackles who are starting (many of them are 4-3 players) so the average salary ranking isn’t really a bad thing. I can understand, though, if some would question the fully guaranteed money for a player of his age.

As for Green, his deal is typical of players who mostly serve as rotational, depth and special teams. It’s a run-of-the-mill contract and no more than that.

We’ve been over Stephenson’s deal, which was questionable when it was signed and remains so. He has fallen down the average salary rankings among right tackles, though talk is he might move to the left side. If he does, that won’t change the ranking because the fully guaranteed money at signing is what made this one not such a good deal.

Watson’s deal was an overpay thanks to the offensive line market this year. Now, if Watson does prove to be a quality starter for the Broncos, the ranking will change. But I don’t blame anybody for being skeptical… after all, Watson will have to play like a top 10 right tackle or prove he can be a good left tackle to justify the average salary ranking. At this point, Watson’s deal is the worst value among veteran contracts.

Published by

Bob Morris

I'm a sports writer in real life, though I've always focused on smaller communities, but that hasn't stopped me from learning more about some of the ins and outs of the NFL. You can follow me on Twitter @BobMorrisSports if you can put up with updates on the high school sports teams I cover.
View all posts by Bob Morris